Proposed Model for a Streamlined, Cohesive, and
Optimized K-12 STEM Curriculum with a Focus on
Engineering
Edward Locke
Abstract
This article presents a proposed model for a
clear description of K-12 age-possible engineer-
ing knowledge content, in terms of the selection
of analytic principles and predictive skills for
various grades, based on the mastery of mathe-
matics and science pre-requisites, as mandated
by national or state performance standards; and
a streamlined, cohesive, and optimized K-12
engineering curriculum, in terms of a continu-
ous educational process that starts at kinder-
garten and/or elementary schools, intensifies at
middle schools, differentiates at high schools
and streamlines into four-year universities
through two-year community colleges, integrat-
ing solid mastery of particular analytic skills
and generic engineering design processes. This
article is based upon a “Vision Paper” that was
presented at the International Technology
Education Association’s 71st Annual Conference
held in Louisville, Kentucky under the sponsor-
ship of Dr. John Mativo, from the University of
Georgia. It is hoped that many ideas explored in
this article could provide answers to the prob-
lems in the current practice of K-12 engineering
education, as discussed in the authoritative
report issued several months later, on September
8, 2009, by the Committee on K-12 Engineering
Education established by the National Academy
of Engineering and the National Research
Council, titled Engineering in K-12 Education:
Understanding the Status and Improving the
Prospects, which included the absence of cohe-
sive K-12 engineering curriculum and the lack
of well-developed standards.
Introduction
In the last decade, it has been perceived by
scholars and administrators involved with K-12
STEM education as well as concerned business
leaders that the shortage of engineering gradu-
ates from U.S. colleges must be resolved. In
fact, the numbers of engineering degrees award-
ed over the last 20 years by U. S. universities
was quite small. The National Science
Foundation Statistics (2008) indicated that, in
the years 1985 - 2005, the number of earned
bachelor’s degrees ranged from approximately
60,000 to 80,000; the number of earned master’s
degrees ranged from approximately 20,000 to
23
The Journal of Technology Studies
34,000; and the number of earned doctorate
degrees ranged from approximately 3,700 to
6,000. Wicklein (2006, p. 29) indicated that in
the United States, “currently, engineering educa-
tion has close to a 50% attrition rate for stu-
dents. […] Georgia currently seeks 50% of the
engineering workforce from out-of-state
sources.” In an effort to solve this problem,
K-12 schools across the United States have
begun to incorporate engineering design into
technology education curriculum. Hill (2006)
indicated that “initiatives to integrate engineer-
ing design within the field of technology educa-
tion are increasingly evident.” Smith (2007, pp.
2-3) affirmed the achievements made so far
throughout U.S. high schools by noting, “the
integration of engineering design into secondary
technology education classes,” but also indicated
that the “fragmented focus and lack of a clear
curriculum framework” had been “detrimental to
the potential of the field and have hindered
efforts aimed at achieving the stated goals of
technological literacy for all students.” An
authoritative report issued on September 8,
2009, by the Committee on K-12 Engineering
Education established by the National Academy
of Engineering and the National Research
Council, titled Engineering in K-12 Education:
Understanding the Status and Improving the
Prospects, confirmed the existence of similar
problems in the current K-12 engineering cur-
riculum. To be more specific, the most serious
problems in K-12 engineering education
explored in the report by the Committee on
K-12 Engineering Education (2009) include (a)
absence of cohesive K-12 engineering curricu-
lum (“Engineering design, the central activity
of engineering, is predominant in most K-12
curricular and professional development pro-
grams. The treatment of key ideas in engineer-
ing, many closely related to engineering design,
is much more uneven;” pp. 7-8; p. 151); and (b)
lack of well developed standards (“the teaching
of engineering in elementary and secondary
schools is still very much a work in progress . . .
no national or state-level assessments of student
accomplishment have been developed;” p. 2).
During the International Technology
Education Association’s 71st Annual
 Conference, and under the sponsorship of Dr.
24 John Mativo, from the University of Georgia,
this author presented a proposed model for:
The Journal of Technology Studies
• A Clear Description of K-12 Age-
Appropriate Engineering Knowledge
Content: Selection of K-12 age-appropri-
ate engineering analytic principles and
predictive skills for various grade levels
should be based on the mastery of mathe-
matics and science (notably physics and
chemistry) prerequisites, as mandated by
national or state performance standards for
previous or same grade levels.
• A Streamlined, Cohesive, and Optimized
K-12 Engineering Curriculum: A cohesive
and continuous educational process that
starts at kindergarten and elementary
Figure 1. A streamlined vision for a life-long STEM education.
schools, intensifies at middle schools, dif-
ferentiates at high schools, and streamlines
into four-year universities through two-
year community colleges could be a solu-
tion to various problems in U. S. engineer-
ing education. This principle of streamlin-
ing could also apply to various fields of
STEM (see Figures 1 and 2). The opti-
mization of K-12 engineering education
could be achieved through (a) the integra-
tion of particular analytic and predictive
principles and skills, with different modes
of generic engineering design process,
both transferable to collegiate engineering
studies and (b) the integration of tradition-
al formula-based analytic computations
and physical laboratory experiments with
modern digital simulation technology. The
proposed curriculum is intended to seam-
lessly link K-12 engineering and technolo-
gy curricula to university engineering pro-
grams, by making engineering knowledge
content learned at K-12 schools transfer-
able to engineering courses taught at the
university level; this is the “missing E”
(engineering) that has been neglected by
existing models of K-12 STEM curricula.
This proposed model might contribute to
the solution of the problems described in the
report by the Committee on K-12 Engineering
Education (2009).
Proposed Model for a Clear Description of K-12
Age-Appropriate Engineering Knowledge Content
The key to understanding how to scientifi-
cally, rationally, and effectively infuse engineer-
ing analytic content knowledge and the design
process into K-12 curriculum can be related to
the understanding of the following four basic
types of relations:
(1) Relations among mathematics, science,
engineering, and technology: Mathematics
provides computational tools for the predictive
analysis in sciences, engineering, and technolo-
gy; it is the primary gatekeeper for the inclusion

Figure 2. A streamlined model for STEM education.
or noninclusion of any science, engineering, or
technology topic into any course taught at any
grade level. Sciences (physics, chemistry, biology,
etc.) are concerned with discovery and delivery
of knowledge, and they form the foundation
for engineering and technology; additionally,
sciences (notably physics and chemistry) consti-
tute the secondary gatekeeping determinants.
Engineers apply knowledge gained through the
scientific process in the creative design of prod-
ucts and systems to be used in solving everyday
problems, and they are the vital link in the
STEM system that transforms “pure” knowledge
into usable and financially profitable assets
(products and systems), through the process of
innovation. Technology is the skills of applying,
maintaining, and arranging products and sys-
tems in the solution of daily problems. Based on
this understanding, the selection of engineering
topics for any grade level must be based on the
prior mastery of prerequisite principles and
skills in mathematics and science courses.
(2) Relations between specific engineering
analytic knowledge content and the generic
engineering design process: Mastery of a suffi-
cient amount of specific analytic knowledge
content (principles, concepts, computational
skills using formulas or simulation software, as
25
The Journal of Technology Studies
well as experimental and research methods) con-
stitutes the foundation for meaningful engineer-
ing design; in contrast, engineering design gives
students an opportunity to synthesize knowledge
and skills gained from various branches of engi-
neering into workable solutions that help create
and maintain usable products and systems.
Based on this understanding, the inclusion of
engineering as a meaningful K-12 subject must
be based on an appropriate balance between
instruction of specific engineering analytic
knowledge content and the inculcation of the
ability of using engineering design processes.
(3) Relations between different modes of
design and different stages of K-12 students’
cognitive developmental level: Design processes
could include different modes.
• Creative and Conceptual Design:
Examples of this mode include conceptu-
al imagination, ideation for simple prod-
uct and tools (e.g., everyday items, such
as shopping bags, benches, chairs, tables).
Kindergarten and elementary school stu-
dents are good at wild imagination with
little training, but at this age they are just
beginning to learn basic mathematics and
sciences; thus, this mode could be used in
Grades K-5.
 • Technology Education Design: This mode
26 of design is based on “trial-and-error” or
“hypothesis-and-testing” experiments;
The Journal of Technology Studies
and it is an important method of scientific
inquiry. An example of this mode could
be the design, fabrication, and testing of
composite materials, based on a rational
hypothesis and its proof or disproof
through experiments. This mode could
be used in Grades 6-8.
• Analytic Reduction: This mode is good
for solving well-structured, simple, and
usually closed-ended engineering design
problems (e.g., designing a gear set that
changes speed and direction of rotational
motions) that are focused on scientific
and technological issues. It is suitable for
stand-alone engineering foundation or
specialty courses that deal with particular
sets of knowledge content. This mode
could be used in Grades 9-11.
• Systems Thinking: This mode of design is
good for solving ill-structured, open-
ended, and complex engineering design
problems, which involve not only many
branches of science and engineering, but
also social studies (culture and econom-
ics), ecology and arts. It generally could
lead to multiple results that satisfy the
original design requirements. This is the
most frequently used mode in real-world
engineering design practice. Examples of
this mode include senior-year design proj-
ects in any typical university undergradu-
ate engineering program. This mode
would be most suitable for Grade 12 or
graduation year “capstone” design cours-
es, and it could be used for extracurricu-
lar interdisciplinary design projects
throughout Grades K-12.
Engaging K-12 students in the design
process is feasible. Previous research conducted
by Fleer (2000) and funded by the University of
Canberra and the Curriculum Corporation of
Australia for the development of a technology
curriculum concluded that children as young as
3 to 5 years of age can engage in oral and visual
planning as part of the process of making things
from materials; their planning involved the use
of lists and designs of what they intended to
make. Claxton, Pannells, and Rhoads (2005)
indicated that the level of developmental maturity
occurred around 5 to 6 years of age; that a
creative peak occurred at 10 to 11 years old; and
that “after age 12, a gradual but steady rise in
creativity occurred through the rest of adoles-
cence until a second peak was reached around
16 years of age” (p. 328).
(4) Relations between kindergarten/elemen-
tary education and secondary education:
Throughout the Grades K-6, students barely
learn the basics of STEM, English language,
and other mandated subjects; they have a very
limited set of mathematics skills to carry out
engineering analysis and prediction-related com-
putations; thus, an integrative STEM approach
in general science courses, with broad exposure
to a variety of science, engineering, and technol-
ogy subjects, would be very age-appropriate.
At the secondary level, students either have
mastered or are in the process of mastering more
in-depth and specialized mathematics skills
(algebra, geometry, trigonometry), and they have
mastered basic scientific principles that are
needed for understanding engineering analytic
principles; thus, more extensive engineering
studies could be implemented; here, depth and
specialty should be emphasized.
Method for the Selection of K-12 Age-Appropriate
Analytic Principles and Skills
Up to this date, “hard-core” engineering
content from various subjects, such as statics,
dynamics, and fluid mechanics, are generally
not systematically taught until students enroll
in university undergraduate courses; however,
textbooks used in these courses could be ana-
lyzed to determine the mathematics and science
(notably physics and chemistry) prerequisites
for various topics covered therein. Topics whose
prerequisites are covered at various K-12 grade
levels could be selected for pedagogic experi-
ments at higher grade levels, to determine their
age-appropriateness. This author’s research on
high school age-appropriate statics and fluid
mechanics topics, during Spring 2009, at the
University of Georgia, incorporated the
following steps:
(1) Select textbooks and instructor solution
manuals that are among the most popu-
lar for undergraduate engineering statics
and fluid mechanics courses;
(2) Read carefully every paragraph in the
body text to find and record the prereq-
uisite science knowledge content needed
for each topic (notably physics and
chemistry);
 (3) Find the relevant computational
formulas to determine and record the
mathematics skills needed; and
(4) Compare the recorded data with the
mandates of the Performance Standards
for Mathematics and Sciences of the
Department of Education of a selected
state, to determine the grade level for
the inclusion of the topic.
This previous research indicated that, using
the mandates of the Performance Standards for
Mathematics and Sciences of one of the “low-
performing” states in the United States, around
50% of all topics in the textbooks used in under-
graduate statics and fluid mechanics courses are
based on precalculus mathematics skills and on
scientific principles that are covered prior to 9th
grade, and therefore, could be taught to 9th
Grade high school students. For other founda-
tion engineering courses common to all under-
graduate programs, such as dynamics, strength
of materials and material science, heat transfer,
thermodynamics, engineering economics, and
aerodynamics, the percentage figure ranges
from 30% to 50% based on this author’s rough
estimates using similar standards.
Even though high school students could
learn engineering topics, this does not automati-
cally mean that they would have enough energy
to proceed. Due to many factors, K-12 schedules
are crowded with many mandated subjects; and
the academic resources for implementing engi-
neering curriculum are rather limited. Thus,
realistically only the most important engineering
analytic content knowledge can be attempted to
be infused in the curriculum. Expert opinions of
the relative importance of various topics can be
collected, possibly through a five-point Likert
scale, four-round Delphi survey. This survey
could be used to determine the relative impor-
tance of various engineering analytic principles
and computational skills for inclusion into a
potentially viable K-12 engineering curriculum
and eventually to establish a set of national or
state K-12 engineering performance standards.
Proposed Model for a Streamlined, Cohesive, and
Optimized K-12 Engineering Curriculum
Based on the above mechanism for the
development of a clear description of K-12
age-appropriate engineering knowledge content,
in this article the author proposes a new model
for a streamlined, cohesive, logical, and
optimized K-12 Engineering Curriculum, which
could also be used as a general model for 27
STEM, including mathematics and sciences
The Journal of Technology Studies
(Figures 1 and 2). This new model could provide
a workable framework for organizing and
sequencing the essential knowledge and skills to
be developed through K-12 engineering educa-
tion in a rigorous or systematic way, making the
future K-12 Engineering curriculum optimally
connected to college-level engineering programs
and to real world practice, and eventually lead to
the establishment of formal national and state
learning standards or guidelines on K-12
Engineering Education.
The Proposed Model would include two
components: a Regular Curriculum (Table 1)
for all students enrolled in K-12 Engineering
Curriculum or “Career Pathways,” and an
Extracurricular Enrichment Program for selected
groups of students.
First Component - Regular Curriculum
Lewis (2007) indicated that, “to become
more entrenched in schools, engineering educa-
tion will have to take on the features of a school
subject and argued in terms of what is good for
children” (p. 846). In addition, Lewis (2007)
discussed the need to (a) establish a “codified
body of knowledge that can be ordered and
articulated across the grades” with focused
attempt to systematize the state of the art in
engineering in a way that is translatable in
schools (instead of short term efforts focused
on a particular topic or unit) and (b) make engi-
neering education a coherent system with the
creation of content standards for the subject
area, in line with science and technology
education (pp. 846-848).
As shown in Table 1, the Regular Curriculum
is designed for all students who are interested in
STEM Career Pathways and could be adequately
trained in basic mathematics skills; it is aimed at
implementing engineering design process step-
by-step, progressing from simple to complex,
from easy to difficult, from broad to deep, from
generic to special, in an incremental, logical, sys-
tematic, and cohesive sequence. This is based on
age-appropriateness, with a deep respect for time-
proven traditional pedagogy while incorporating
the positive achievements of the recent decade in
instructional technology, especially in terms of
digital modeling and simulation technology. This
curriculum is divided into several stages, each
corresponding to the infusion of engineering
 Table 1. Regular K-12 Engineering Curriculum Flow Chart
28 Grades K-5 Grades 6-8
(Kindergarten & (Middle School)
The Journal of Technology Studies
Elementary School) For all students,
For all students especially the STEM-
oriented ones
Knowledge Content (Course Works)
STEM Courses (2 courses; Mathematics & Science
throughout Grades K-5): (2 courses; throughout
Grades 6-8).
1st Course (Grades K-5) -
Mathematics. Technology (8 Subjects
organized into 4 Full Year
2nd Course (Grades K-5) - Courses; 1 Course per
Integrated Science, Grade/Year):
Engineering and
Technology: 1st Course (Grade 6) -
• General Principles of Product Design &
Science, Engineering Manufacturing:
and Technology; • Engineering Drafting,
• Diverse Topics in Solid Modeling &
Science, Engineering Product Design;
and Technology; • Manufacturing
• Ecologically Systems.
Sustainable
Application of 2nd Course (Grade 7, an
Science, Engineering extension to Grade 6
and Technology. Science Course) -
• Careers & Ethics in Humans & Environment:
Science, Engineering • Power & Energy;
and Technology. • Construction Systems.
3rd Course (Grade 8) -
Technology Aesthetics
& Ergonomics:
• Digital Graphics
Design & Product
Aesthetics;
• Ergonomics, Safety
& Appropriate
Technology
Development.
4th Course (Grade 8, to be
taught as a part of Science
Course) - Electronics &
Control Technology:
• Electrical Circuitry
Design, Component
Selection & Digital
Simulation;
• Robotics Assembly &
Programming.
Mode of Design Process
Creative, Conceptual and Engineering & Technology Analytic Reduction” for
light analytic (assignments). Experiment (assignments). “Well-structured problems
(“Mini Capstone” or final
design or research project
for each course)
design into a period of K-12 education: (a)
kindergarten and elementary schools; (b) middle
schools; (c) high schools; and (d) graduation
year.
Grades 9-11 Grade 12
(High School) (High School
For all Engineering Graduation Year)
Pathway students For all Engineering
Pathway students
Mathematics & Sciences Design “Capstone” (2
(2 courses; throughout Courses at Grades 12).
Grades 9-11. For Sciences, 1st Course (Grade 12, 1st
Physics and Chemistry are Semester) - Engineering
mandatory). Design Capstone I:
• Mini Lesson:
Engineering Foundation Engineering
(Several Subjects organized Economics, and other
into 3 Courses; 1 Course topics relevant to the
per Semester): design project;
• Design activities
1st Course (Grade 9, 1st (teamwork).
Semester) - Engineering 2nd Course (Grade 12,
Mechanics I: 2nd Semester) -
• Statics & Dynamics; Engineering Design
Capstone II:
2nd Course (Grade 9, 2nd • Design activities
Semester) - Engineering (teamwork).
Mechanics II: • Prototyping activities
• Fluid Mechanics & (teamwork).
Aerodynamics;
• Heat Transfer &
Thermodynamics.
3rd Course (Grade 10, 1st
Semester) - Engineering
Materials:
• Strength of Materials;
• Materials Properties,
Treatment & Selection.
Engineering Pathway (3
courses; 1/semester; 2nd
Semester of Grade 10,
1st and 2nd Semester of
Grade 11).
Note: For non-Engineering
Pathways (Science,
Technology and
mathematics), the Design
Note: For non-Engineering “Capstone” courses would
Pathways (Science, be changed to Research or
Technology and mathemat- Manufacturing
ics), the Foundation and “Capstone.”
Pathway courses would be
different.
Ill-structured and
Systems Thinking”
(“Capstone” graduation
project)
At Grades K-5 (kindergarten to elementary
schools): All students would be introduced to
science, engineering, and technology, while they
built a solid foundation in mathematics.
Students would be given an opportunity to: (a)
have a broad exposure to diverse aspects of
science, engineering and technology (the
“breadth”); (b) foster ability of creative imagina-
tion (the “wild”); and (c) foster a systemic and
holistic view of technological systems as inter-
active and interconnected. Students would mas-
ter similar knowledge content that is traditional-
ly required of college engineering and technolo-
gy students in the following courses:
Introduction to Science, Engineering and
Technology; Engineering Ethics; and
Appropriate Engineering and Technology. This
stage would be similar to what many of U.S.
K-12 schools have practiced during the past
decade. Minimal modifications would be made
regarding infusing age-appropriate engineering
knowledge content through contextual, hands-
on, and creative design activities.
At Grades 6-8 (middle schools): Courses
included in this stage should be made available
to all students and taken by all STEM-oriented
students. During this stage, all students would
consolidate their mathematics and science foun-
dation and explore the basics of traditional and
modern technology with more specialized and
stand-alone courses. Students would master the
fundamentals of modern technology that are
associated with engineering (e.g., CAD and 3D
modeling, traditional and CNC manufacturing
process, and others). This coursework would
prepare them for a lifelong career related to
STEM. For non-STEM-oriented students, tech-
nology courses included in this part of the
Proposed Model could still help them to gain
practical skills with lifelong benefits. The
mathematics and science portions of this part of
the Proposed Model would still be similar to
what most of U.S. schools have practiced in the
past, except that the content knowledge would
be more specialized and intensive, including
some relevant engineering topics, either as
“word problems” or as mini research projects.
In addition, specialized and intensive engineer-
ing-related technology courses would be offered.
At Grades 9-11 (high schools): Selective
courses included in this stage should be taken
by students enrolled in separate STEM Career
Pathways; as shown in Figure 2, these Career
Pathways could be any branches of science
(biology, chemistry, physics, etc.), technology
(CAD, manufacturing, product design, etc.),
engineering (mechanical, civil, electrical and
electronics, etc.), depending on changing
national and local needs. During this stage,
students would be branched out to different 29
STEM “Career Pathways” of their choice, take
The Journal of Technology Studies
a sequence of precalculus based, well-connected,
and specialized courses. The specialized STEM
“Career Pathways” would directly streamline
students into relevant STEM majors at colleges
or universities through cross-institutional trans-
fer and/or articulation agreements, which might
include dual high school and college credits (for
technology courses such as engineering drafting
and CAD/CAM) and the High School
Certificate Examination in a particular area of
STEM, for the completion of certain courses
(such as Introduction to Science, Engineering,
and Technology, Engineering Ethics,
Appropriate Technology, etc.) or their precalcu-
lus portions. In the future, special examinations
modeled after Fundamentals of Engineering
(FE) could be designed to test the abilities of
high school graduates to solve precalculus-level
engineering problems. For students who pass
these examinations, special accommodations
could be granted (e.g., they would still be
enrolled in undergraduate engineering courses to
continue studying relevant topics beyond the
precalculus portions they have learned at high
schools, but they could be exempt from specific
homework and quizzes related to precalculus
portions, allowing them to devote their time to
calculus-based course materials and to engineer-
ing design and research projects.
At Grade 12 (high school graduation year):
The mathematics and science portions of this
part of the Proposed Model would still be simi-
lar to what most U.S. schools have practiced
during the past decade, leading to graduation
from high school and entry into college educa-
tion. In the last year of K-12 education, students
enrolled in STEM “Career Pathways” would
spend two semesters in a research or design
“Capstone” project to demonstrate their ability
to synthesize the knowledge content from vari-
ous courses taken previously and to solve an
open-ended real-world problem with reasonable
complexity, in a “System Thinking” mode. This
project could constitute the masterpiece of the
students’ academic portfolio. The instructors
would advise, guide, and evaluate students, and
they would teach additional topics relevant to
the “Capstone” projects.
Core engineering concepts “go beyond tool
skills… and beyond the digital skills that have
captured the interest of the profession over the
 past two decades. Tools will change but even majors; it can selectively teach high school stu-
30 more important is the cognitive content and dents appropriate engineering knowledge con-
intellectual processes fundamental to effective tent (the “precalculus portions”), which up to
The Journal of Technology Studies

technological problem solving and literacy”
(Sanders, 2008, p. 6). The idea of a precalculus
but “hard-core” high school engineering curricu-
lum, the centerpiece of the Proposed Model is
feasible. Most basic scientific principles and
analytic skills related to engineering design that
practical engineers work with on a regular basis
are based on precalculus mathematics
(trigonometry, algebra, geometry, and functions)
with some needs for beginning calculus (integra-
tion and differentiation) and substantial needs
for linear algebra. Traditionally, “hard-core”
engineering topics are taught in lower division
courses of undergraduate engineering programs.
However, because precalculus mathematic is
offered in most U.S. high schools, there is a rea-
sonable possibility that some portions of tradi-
tional college-level engineering content knowl-
edge could be downloaded to high school stu-
dents, in order to streamline their pathway to
engineering careers. Therefore, it is feasible to
develop and implement a high school engineer-
ing curriculum that could be seamlessly
connected to college engineering programs.
this point, remain the domain of university
undergraduate engineering programs. Adopting
this model could allow high school graduates
from engineering and technology curricula to
have mastered a sufficient amount of engineer-
ing analytical skills that are transferable to
undergraduate engineering courses, so they
could spend a few weeks reviewing the “precal-
culus portions” of the course materials and then
concentrate on the more difficult calculus-based
portions. This would (a) give academically chal-
lenged high school students a better chance to
pursue engineering studies as “early birds”
and thus increase the enrollment of domestic
students in undergraduate engineering majors;
(b) give U.S. undergraduate engineering students
the same “early bird” advantage over those in
many other countries; and (c) give college engi-
neering professors a better way to manage
course schedules. The students would be more
adequately prepared to handle, the coursework,
and this should improve the quality of under-
graduate engineering education and reduce the
dropout rate.

The Proposed Model for K-12 Engineering
Curriculum is designed to solve the problem of
the chronic shortage of engineering graduates in
the United States, by offering K-12 students a
better preparation for college-level engineering
Second Component - Extracurricular Enrichment
Program
The Extracurricular Enrichment Program
could be operated in two formats.

Table 2. Commonly Shared Undergraduate Lower-Division Engineering

Foundation Courses Among Various Engineering Programs at the University of
Georgia, Based on Data from Undergraduate Engineering Program Handouts
(Available from Room 120, Driftmier Engineering Center, Athens, Georgia 30602).

University of University of Georgia Engineering Foundation Courses

Georgia ENGR ENGR ENGR ENGR ENGR ENGR ENGR ENGR ENGR
Engineering 1120 2120 2130 2140 Fluid 3140 3150 2920 2110
Program Graphics Statics Dynamics Strength Mechanics Thermo- Heat Electrical Engineering
& Design of dynamics Transfer Circuits Decision
Materials Making
B.S. in Agricultural Engineering
Electrical &
Electronic Systems
Mechanical
Systems
Natural Resource
Management
Structural Systems
Process Operations
B. S. in Biological Engineering
Environmental
Area of Emphasis
Biochemical
Area of Emphasis
Biomedical Area
of Emphasis
• Biomechanics
Track
• Instrmentation
Track
Infusing Engineering Topics Into K-12 Mathematics
and Science Courses.
In addition to teaching engineering analysis
and design through special Career Pathway
courses, suitable engineering content could be
incorporated into regular middle school and
high school mathematics, chemistry, and physics
courses, as extra teaching materials, word prob-
lems, and simple design projects. For example,
in a geometry course, the engineering applica-
tion of the triangular shapes could be explained
to students, such as a triangle is “indestructible,”
unless the side lengths are changed, the shape
would stay intact. In addition, triangular mem-
bers are widely used in structural design; bridge
design projects could be incorporated, with
learning materials from the Internet, to study the
subject of force equilibrium, to simulate bridge
design with West Point Bridge Design software
(http://bridgecontest.usma.edu/), and to build a
scale model. Moreover, because triangles have
one straight edge opposite a sharp corner, they
can accommodate different shapes in three-
dimensional space and are used in the develop-
ment of irregular or curved surfaces; thus, some
topics of engineering sheet-metal design could
be taught, giving the students an opportunity to
design a transition piece, as shown in Figure 3.
In a chemistry course, subjects of material selec-
tions could be incorporated. Other appropriate
engineering topics could be identified by engi-
neering and technology faculty and graduate
students using well-established criteria, and
gradually added to regular K-12 mathematics,
physics, and chemistry courses as extra learning
materials, through a process of pilot study or
other mechanism of pedagogic experiment. This
approach is simple, easy to implement, and vir-
tually risk-free. It would not likely cause any
disturbance to routine K-12 mathematics and
science instruction.
Interdisciplinary Design Projects
Engineering design projects involving
knowledge and skills from a variety of subjects
could be implemented through after-school club
activities or through training sessions during
summer vacations. Such enrichment programs
could provide students enrolled in STEM path-
ways an opportunity to (a) review previously
learned scientific principles and skills while
learning new ones that are relevant to the design
projects; (b) integrate principles and skills from
various STEM subjects and non-STEM subjects
(e.g., social study, arts.), into practical design
31
The Journal of Technology Studies
Figure 3. Examples of circle-to-square
transition pieces (sheet-metal
connector and restaurant take-home
food container).
solutions; and (c) foster the ability to combine
both “analytic reduction” and “system thinking”
modes of the engineering design process, for
solving real-world problems in a real-world
manner. Mativo and Sirinterlikci (2005) devel-
oped an “animatronics” design project for stu-
dent (Grades 7-12) It included an open-ended
and creative project for the design of lifelike
entertainment robots or dynamic and interactive
animated toys with a mechatronic blob, penguin,
robotic trash can, and a human-monster hybrid.
These could cruise, wave swords, flip wings,
and light eyes, in fun and creative team environ-
ments. They combined analytic and design skills
from the following different but interconnected
fields: (a) mechanical engineering (material and
manufacturing process selection, including met-
als, ceramics, plastics and composites; mecha-
nism design and assembly of levers and cranks,
etc.); (b) electronics (actuators, sensors, con-
trols); (c) microcontrollers’ structure and pro-
gramming; (d) emerging technologies, such as
muscle wires, air muscles, micro- and nanocon-
trollers; (e) two- and three-dimensional art (cos-
tuming from fabrics to rubber Latex, and model-
ing), and (f) industrial product design. The
implementation of this project indicated that stu-
dents’ academic performance improved through
interdisciplinary engineering design activities.
See figure 4. In summary, in addition to a
Regular Curriculum, an Extracurricular
Enrichment Program would be an effective
supplement to help consolidate students’
mastery of fundamental knowledge and creative
design ability.
Potentially Realistic Students’ Learning Outcomes
For students enrolled in K-12 Engineering
Curriculum, when they graduate from high
32
The Journal of Technology Studies
Figure 4. Sirinterlikci and Mativo’s Animatronics project helped students
improve STEM learning through inclusion of engineering design (Mativo &
Sirinterlikci, 2005a).
schools, they could realistically be expected to
have (a) built a solid foundation in precalculus
mathematics and sciences; (b) learned the basics
of engineering-related industrial arts and digital
modeling and simulation technology; (c) mas-
tered a sufficiently large portion of precalculus-
based engineering analytic principles and pre-
dictive computational skills; and (d) become
familiar with various modes of the engineering
design process. These potentially realistic learn-
ing outcomes could give these students the free-
dom to choose any of the following:
(1) Enrollment in college engineering
programs as full-time students with a
solid mastery of the precalculus-based
portions of foundation courses as well
as practical engineering design and
research skills; or
(2) Entry into job market as technical
employees, such as CAD drafters with
some entry-level ability to design
simple products (e.g., furniture, tools,
toys with electronic devices and kitchen
appliances with simple circuitry and
mechanical components), while
enrolling as part-time students in
engineering and technology programs,
including two-year technical certificate
or four-year bachelor of science
degrees; or
(3) Enrollment in non-engineering university
undergraduate majors (e.g., science and
mathematics) with useful abilities and
skills for lifelong career enhancement;
for example, a future scientist or
mathematicians would be able to design
and prototype devices to facilitate
experiments or teaching.
Notice that the aforementioned choices are
simply convenient suggestions, and by no means
do they constitute any intended idea about
“academic tracking.” If the Proposed Model
were adequately implemented, then all students
enrolled in K-12 STEM Career Pathways ( all
types of achievers), could be better prepared
for a science or engineering major at the college
level. Therefore, the Proposed Model should be
considered as an egalitarian (although upward
mobile and flexible) model that promotes equal
preparation for college engineering majors from
an academic perspective; it would be up to the
students to choose their Career Pathways. The
ultimate purpose of the Proposed Model is to
educate new generations of innovative engineers
or professionals in other fields. This could be
accomplished by launching K-12 students early
into engineering studies, so that they could foster
analytic and innovative capacities early in life.
Modern engineering education is more compli-
cated than ever before, due to the explosion of
new knowledge and technologies, especially
those related to digital modeling and simulation.
In addition, traditional engineering education
has been somehow challenging to students due
to heavy requirements on calculus-based mathe-
matics, physics, and engineering course work.
Therefore, engaging students early in the
Engineering Career Pathways would make sense.
It is not this author’s expectation for K-12 stu-
dents to become instantaneous robotic designers
or spacecraft engineers (although the highest
academic achievers among them should be given
adequate preparation for careers of vital national
interests). This is generally beyond their cogni-
tive maturity (except in some high-achieving
communities where economic and educational
conditions might magically allow this to hap-
pen); instead, we should aim at matching K-12
engineering and technology education with the
cognitive maturity level of average K-12 stu-
dents. Taking the Mechanical Engineering Career
Pathway as an example, they could be expected
to graduate from the program with some creative
abilities and analytic skills to design and proto-
type everyday products or systems, with simple
mechanical and electronic components (either of
their own design or from out-of-shelf selection),
which are professionally ready for production or
installation; and these could include toys, uten-
sils, furniture, clothing, and fastening devices.
This might be doable for average high school
graduates. But they should not be expected to
design robots except the very simple ones using
out-of-shelf components. Expecting too much
from K-12 students without a reasonable chance
to succeed would not be the best way to prepare
them for a brilliant engineering career. This line
of thinking is compatible with the “everyday
technology” idea of broadly defining “the term
technology to include the artifacts of everyday
life as well as environments and systems,” of
“focusing on the technologies of everyday life,”
and of allowing children to “solve problems of
real significance in their lives,” which have been
explained by Benenson (2001, pp. 730-732), in
presenting his 10-year long City Technology
project.
Potential Benefits of the Proposed Model
The Proposed Model’s most important
potential benefit is the symbiotic integration of
specific engineering analytic knowledge content
with various modes of generic engineering
design process, for it is self-evident that without
teaching K-12 students particular age-appropri-
ate engineering analytic and predictive knowl-
edge content, they could not build a solid foun-
dation of knowledge and skills for further study
of engineering at college level. Also, without
giving such students opportunities to practice
age-appropriate engineering design, they would
not be able to synthesize various sets of knowl-
edge and skills into practical solutions of real-
world problems and to form appropriate
engineering thinking habits. The aim of infusing
engineering analytic and predictive principles
and computational skills into a potentially viable
K-12 engineering curriculum is NOT to make 33
students instruments of computations, or to
The Journal of Technology Studies
encourage rote memorization of engineering
analytic principles and computational formulas,
or their applications in solving a few simple
homework problems in the purely “Analytic
Reduction” model (although all of the above are
necessary tasks); however the aim is to foster the
real ability of solving real-world problems,
which involve integration of engineering analytic
principles. It also involves, of course, computa-
tional formulas, from various subjects, as well
as knowledge from art, social and ecological
studies, and others, into a “system thinking”
model of holistic problem solving. This focus on
solving problems could foster students’ real abil-
ity in innovative engineering design that is based
on solid mastery of necessary analytic tools.
This would allow them to use the generic engi-
neering design approach to create real-world
quality products and systems, which are appro-
priate to their age, technically feasible, and
socially and ecologically appropriate.
Conclusions
This article has provided a workable frame-
work for defining K-12 age-appropriate engi-
neering knowledge content and an outline for a
new paradigm for a streamlined, cohesive, and
optimized lifelong STEM education in the
United States, with a focus in engineering. For
additional details of the Proposed Model, please
contact the author at edwardnlocke@yahoo.com.
In order to improve K-12 engineering education,
the following recommendations and plans are
hereby presented for consideration, support, and
implementation:
1. Organization: Establish a network of
stakeholders, to include, (a) government
officers in charge of K-12 STEM educa-
tion at Federal and state levels, (b) lead-
ers of National Centers for Engineering
and Technology Education and other
institutions of authority in K-12 engi-
neering education, (c) scholars in the
fields of engineering and technology
education from universities and research
institutions, (d) school district adminis-
trators and engineering and technology
teachers, (e) representatives from the
business community and nonprofit
organizations, and (f) university
engineering students. This network
could offer stakeholders an opportunity
 to discuss specific policies, measures, prerequisite for the implementation of
34 actions to be taken for the solution of the K-12 Engineering Curriculum
problems listed in the report by the proposed in this article. It would be an
The Journal of Technology Studies

Committee on K-12 Engineering important reference for the development

Education (2009). It could also offer
them criticism and advice regarding the
improvement of the model of the K-12
Engineering Curriculum proposed in this
article, so that it could eventually
become a collective proposal accepted
by all or most of the stakeholders.
2. Research: Continue research on defining
K-12 age-appropriate engineering
knowledge content from the following
subjects: dynamics, strength of materials,
material science, heat transfer, thermody-
namics, engineering economics, aerody-
namics, and mechanism design; this will
lead to the eventual publication of The
Handbook of Proposed Engineering
Topics with Analytic Principles,
Computational Formulas and Units for
K-12 Schools (with Reviews for
Mathematics and Sciences). This
research constitutes the most important
of K-12 engineering teaching materials
and the improvement of K-12 engineering
and technology teacher training
programs.
3. Pilot study: K-12 schools (especially
high schools, including charter schools)
could be found to conduct pilot peda-
gogic experiments to determine the age-
appropriateness of all K-12 feasible
engineering analytic knowledge content
to be identified in the above-mentioned
Handbook to be published in the near
future.
Edward Locke graduated in 2009 with an
Education Specialist degree from the College of
Education, Department of Workforce Education,
Leadership and Social Foundations at The
University of Georgia, Athens.

References
Benenson, G. (2001). The unrealized potential of everyday technology as a context for learning.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (7), 730-745
Claxton, A. F., Pannells, T. C., & Rhoads, P. A. (2005). Developmental trends in the creativity of
school age children. Creativity Research Journal, 17 (4), 327-335.
Committee on K-12 Engineering Education (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding
the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academy of Engineering and the
National Research Council.
Fleer, M. (2000). Working technologically: Investigations into how young children design and make
during technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 43-59.
Hill, R. B. (2006). New perspectives: Technology teacher education and engineering design. Journal
of Industrial Teacher Education, 43 (3), Retrieved February 2, 2009, from
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v43n3/hill.html
Lewis, T. (2007). Engineering education in schools. International Journal of Engineering Education,
23(5), 843-852.
Mativo, J., & Sirinterlikci, A. (2005a). AC 2007-730: Innovative exposure to engineering basics
through mechatronics summer honors program for high school students. Retrieved January 30,
2009, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/welsf/faculty/mativo/index.html
Mativo, J., & Sirinterlikci, A. (2005b). Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering
Education Annual Conference & Exposition: A Cross-disciplinary study via animatronics. Retrieved
January 30, 2009, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/welsf/faculty/mativo/index.html
Mativo, J., & Sirinterlikci, A. (2005c). 2006-2505: Summer honors institute for the gifted. Retrieved
January 30, 2009, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/welsf/faculty/mativo/index.html 35
National Science Foundation. (2008). General science and engineering indicators of the digest of key

The Journal of Technology Studies

science and engineering indicators 2008. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from http://www.nsf.gov/
statistics/digest08/pages/figure8.htm
Sanders, M. E. (2008, December). Integrative STEM education: Primer. The Technology Teacher,
68(4), 20-26.
Smith, P. C. (2007). Identifying the essential aspects and related academic concepts of an engineering
design curriculum in secondary technology education. Unpublished internal research report,
NCETE. Retrieved January 30, 2009 from http://ncete.org/flash/publications.php
Wicklein, R. C. (2006). Five reasons for engineering design as the focus for technology education.
Technology Teacher, 65(7), 25–29.